Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births? SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2017.

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2016.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).

BACKGROUND: Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment has included ultrasonography plus serum estradiol concentration to ensure safe practice by reducing the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The need for intensive monitoring during ovarian stimulation in IVF is controversial. It has been suggested that close monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for the woman and simplification of IVF therapy by using ultrasound only should be considered. This systematic review assessed the effects of ovarian monitoring by ultrasound only versus ultrasound plus serum estradiol measurement on IVF outcomes and the occurrence of OHSS in women undergoing stimulated cycles in IVF and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles with ultrasound plus serum estradiol concentration versus ultrasound only in terms of live birth rates, pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (1980 to May 2007), CINAHL (1982 to May 2007), the National Research Register, and web-based trial databases such as Current Controlled Trials. There was no language restriction. Additionally all references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with ultrasound plus serum estradiol concentration versus ultrasound only in women undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF and ICSI treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined the electronic search results for relevant trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality. They resolved disagreements by discussion with two other authors. Outcomes data were pooled when appropriate and summary statistics presented when limited data did not allow meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 1119 potentially eligible reports, of which two met our inclusion criteria. These involved 411 women who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation monitoring. Our primary outcome of live birth rate was not reported in either study. One trial reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman (33% versus 31%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.49), the second trial reported clinical pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval (22% versus 25%). There was no significant difference between the ultrasound plus estradiol group and the ultrasound alone group in the mean number of oocytes retrieved (WMD -0.55, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.69) and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.78) for the two studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised trials to support cycle monitoring by ultrasound plus serum estradiol as more efficacious than cycle monitoring by ultrasound only on outcomes of live birth and pregnancy rates. A large well-designed randomised controlled trial is needed that reports on live birth rates and pregnancy, with economic evaluation of the costs involved and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring. A randomised trial with sufficiently large sample size to test the effects of different monitoring protocols on OHSS, a rare outcome, will pose a great challenge. Until such a trial is considered feasible, cycle monitoring by transvaginal ultrasound plus serum estradiol may need to be retained as a precautionary good practice point.

Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) as treatment for male factor subfertility is associated with lower fertilisation and pregnancy rates than for other indications. Since the late 1980s several assisted fertilisation techniques have emerged and have been rapidly developed to try to enhance results for couples with male factor subfertility, or to help couples with severe male factor for whom conventional IVF was not possible. The techniques of partial zona dissection (PZD) and of subzonal microinjection of spermatozoa into the perivitelline space (SUZI) are by far surpassed by the technique of intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI). ICSI has proven to be the therapy of choice for couples with severe male factor subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether ICSI improves livebirth rate in comparison to IVF in couples with non-male subfertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched 30 May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), PubMed (January 1992 to July 2002) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they compared the effects of these techniques on livebirths, pregnancy and fertilisation outcomes. Only randomised studies were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One study met the inclusion criteria for this review. The study compared ICSI with IVF within couples with non-male infertility. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised data comparing livebirth rates. The single identified study did not find a difference in pregnancy rates (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.2). There were no randomised data on miscarriage rates, or on other adverse events such as congenital malformations that may be of concern. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for cases of non-male factor subfertility remains an open question. Further research should report livebirth rates and adverse events.

The influence of the number of follicles on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The influence of multifollicular growth on pregnancy rates in subfertile couples undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) remained unclear. METHODS: Relevant papers were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis was performed and Mantel-Haenszel pooled odd ratios (ORs) and risk differences with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to express the relation between the number of follicles and pregnancy rates. RESULTS: We included 14 studies reporting on 11 599 cycles. The absolute pregnancy rate was 8.4% for monofollicular and 15% for multifollicular growth. The pooled OR for pregnancy after two follicles as compared with monofollicular growth was 1.6 (99% CI 1.3-2.0), whereas for three and four follicles, this was 2.0 and 2.0, respectively. Compared with monofollicular growth, pregnancy rates increased by 5, 8 and 8% when stimulating two, three and four follicles. The pooled OR for multiple pregnancies after two follicles was 1.7 (99% CI 0.8-3.6), whereas for three and four follicles this was 2.8 and 2.3, respectively. The risk of multiple pregnancies after two, three and four follicles increased by 6, 14 and 10%. The absolute rate of multiple pregnancies was 0.3% after monofollicular and 2.8% after multifollicular growth. CONCLUSIONS: Multifollicular growth is associated with increased pregnancy rates in IUI with COH. Since in cycles with three or four follicles the multiple pregnancy rate increased without substantial gain in overall pregnancy rate, IUI with COH should not aim for more than two follicles. One stimulated follicle should be the goal if safety is the primary concern, whereas two follicles may be accepted after careful patient counselling.

Is controlled ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination an acceptable therapy in couples with unexplained non-conception in the perspective of multiple pregnancies?

BACKGROUND: Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common treatment in couples with unexplained non-conception. Induction of multifollicular growth is considered to improve pregnancy outcome, but it contains an increased risk of multiple pregnancies and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In this study the impact of the number of follicles (>14 mm) on the ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) and multiple PR was evaluated in the first four treatment cycles. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in all couples with unexplained non-conception undergoing COS-IUI in the Academic Hospital of Maastricht. The main outcome measure was ongoing PR. Secondary outcomes were ongoing multiple PR, number of follicles of >or=14 mm, and order of treatment cycle. RESULTS: Three hundred couples were included. No significant difference was found in ongoing PR between women with one, two, three or four follicles respectively (P=0.54), but in women with two or more follicles 12/73 pregnancies were multiples. Ongoing PR was highest in the first treatment cycle and declined significantly with increasing cycle order (P=0.006), while multiple PR did not change. CONCLUSIONS: In COS-IUI for unexplained non-conception, induction of more than one follicle did not improve the ongoing PR, but increased the risk of multiple pregnancies. Multiple PR remained high in the first four cycles with multifollicular stimulation. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies, in all IUI cycles for unexplained non-conception monofollicular growth should be aimed at.

ICSI versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during IVF in patients with non-male factor subfertility: a Cochrane review.

UNLABELLED: This paper is based on a Cochrane review of the same title by the same authors published in The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 2003 (see www.CochraneLibrary.net for information) with permission from the Cochrane Collaboration-John Wiley and Sons. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to investigate whether ICSI improves live-birth rate in comparison with IVF in couples with non-male factor subfertility. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched 30 May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), PubMed (January 1992 to September 2003) and reference lists of articles. Trials were included if they compared the effects of ICSI and IVF on live births, pregnancy and fertilization outcomes. Only randomized studies were included in this review. Two reviewers extracted data independently. RESULTS: There were no randomized data comparing live-birth rates. The single identified study did not find a difference in pregnancy rates (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.95-2.2). There were no randomized data on miscarriage rates, or on other adverse events such as congenital malformations that may be of concern (415 couples randomized). Two studies used alternation to assign their couples and did have live birth as an outcome. These studies showed a significantly higher fertilization rate in the IVF group, but no difference in pregnancy, miscarriage or live-birth rate. CONCLUSIONS: Whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for cases of non-male factor subfertility remains an open question. Further research should focus on live-birth rates and adverse events.